Re: [Task Scheduler] scheduling flexibility

+1. Good enough to start (and live) with. The only reason for apps to
know when hints are overridden is to change the UX, but that is not
strictly and universally needed.

Best regards,
Zoltan

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Christophe Dumez
<ch.dumez@sta.samsung.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My proposal would be to add a 'highPrecision' boolean to the Alarm interface
> that the client app could set to true (false being the default) when
> scheduling the alarm to indicate that precise task scheduling would be
> preferred.
> I also think this flag should merely serve as a hint that the system is free
> to ignore (e.g. to preserve battery life, avoid spamming, ...).
>
> I am hoping this is an acceptable compromise. I am trying to be conservative
> here as I would prefer to avoid major API refactoring at this point, unless
> we really need to.
>
> Kr,
>
>
> On 11/05/2013 08:36 AM, Michael van Ouwerkerk wrote:
>
> How do people feel about allowing for scheduling flexibility in the Task
> Scheduler API? The goal of this feature would be to save battery power. If
> the system has flexibility about when to precisely run a task, it could
> batch multiple tasks together, or only run tasks when the device is awake.
> This way, we could avoid waking up devices too frequently.
>
> Some use cases require precise scheduling e.g. an alarm in the morning, or a
> cooking timer. But there are many tasks that are much less time sensitive,
> these could be scheduled flexibly e.g. syncing a news feed or auto-updating
> to a new version.
>
> Any comments? My apologies if this issue has been discussed previously.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael van Ouwerkerk
>
>
> --
> Christophe Dumez - Samsung Telecommunications America

Received on Monday, 11 November 2013 16:52:55 UTC